Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
"May all Northerners be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing."Mrs. Robert E. Lee
Or subsitute Mrs. Lee for Mrs. Jefferson Davis. What is your reaction?
We find a victorious US invader with a proven record for destruction (see WT. Sherman and 'make Georgia howl'statement) while simultaneously encompassing a spirit of vengence in the undefended city and fire begins after these US soldiers arrive. And the core neo-union defense is 'a few intoxicated US soldiers,' 'the presence of prisoners in the city' and a 'windy night.' ALL Southern accounts are disqualified by being labelled "mythology" while hand selected Northern accounts are considered totally acceptable by some, and considered THE facts.
If Miss LeConte's perch were on the very corner of the campus, she could have clearly seen the starting point of the fire 2.5 blocks away. Beyond that, she would have been unable to see any activity in the street -- only the blazing line. She'd have been one block to the east of that line -- looking across the hypotenuse of a right triangle 1 block by 2.5 blocks in the legs with quite a number of buildings in her line of sight.
Miss LeConte never claimed she could see the entire city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
The wind was blowing that night, and not just a wind. It was strong -- so strong that efforts to put out a fire were fruitless until the wind died down early the next morning. When the bales were set on fire, the wrapping was burned away settling loose the contents: golfball-sized wads of cotton. Recall some of the comments about cotton flying through the air like snow, sticking in the trees, and most likely the splintery wood shingles of nearly every building in Columbia. The wind comes up, more cotton is sent aloft, some of it aflame, some of it smoldering.
If the cotton started any fires, the burning buildings could have easily spread from one to another. However, no one disputes that the Union soldiers were setting fires, I suppose to make sure as little as possible was spared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
As to the jail population, it needn't have been all that many -- most with reason to be quite upset with the city: deserters, draft evaders, unionists, and the scum that seems to occupy the ratholes in any city, with the possible addition of a few frisky millhands, railroad workers and city employees confined until they sobered up.
Most of those people would have had family and friends in the city, even if they were scum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
The Union prisoners were all officers -- every bit as refined and gentlemanly as their Confederate counterparts.
Would they have been as gentlemanly as their fellow officer that told the sobbing woman that he didn't give a d*** about her suffering, he was only concerned about his men going against orders?
I'll say it again, IMO, it doesn't matter what or who started the first fire. Sherman's men made sure the city burned, both by starting fires and hampering efforts to put them out. Sherman put his stamp of approval on it it by allowing it to happen, whether he gave a direct order or not.
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Cash, I don't doubt that cotton was smoldering in the streets and I know there was strong winds that night. What I don't know, and I don't think anyone else does either, is if embers from the cotton started any structural fires. The bales were in the street away from property. Whisps of embers being carried on the wind may not have been strong enough to start a fire on a structure.
The cotton bales were mostly on Richardson Street, which is where the main fire was. We have eyewitnesses who saw flaming embers blown by the wind starting fires. The cotton lying around in the streets and in the trees and on the buildings acted as tinder. As embers hit that cotton it ignited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
My real point is that it doesn't matter if it was the cotton that started some of the fires or not. Sherman's men made sure the city burned. It doesn't matter who did or did not give them whiskey, no one made them drink it. On top of that, "being drunk", as an excuse, is the sorriest excuse I can think of. The OR that you quote said, "...but the citizens had so crazed our men with liquor that it was almost impossible to control them." Does that not sound ludicrous to you? He is blaming Columbians for the drunk soldiers and consequently for their actions. Amazing. One would think that the citizens held the poor Union soldiers down and poured liquor down their throats.
It's an established fact that townspeople misguidedly gave liquor to soldiers. I speculate their motivation may have been to try to get on the good side of the soldiers by showing they were friendly.
I've never denied that some drunken Union soldiers helped set fires. My point is that the burning of Columbia was not done by Sherman and it was the result of a series of things and it adds up to a mostly accidental event.
"The fire, of course, was a great tragedy, but it was not until the flames reached such proportions that they were observed by the men of the XV and XVII Corps encamped on the perimeter of the city that conditions reached their nadir. The raging fire was the invitation to stragglers, sightseers, and the curious that all such calamities attract, and consequently a steady stream of troops began to drift into town. Liquor was everywhere abundant, as it had been during the entire day, and new supplies were discovered readily. Soon an assortment of drunken citizens and refugees, both white and black, and 'the vilest vagabond soldiers, the veriest scum of the entire army,' roamed the streets. The appearance of this rioting mob, which continued to accumulate in intensity until it reached a crescendo between 2:00 and 4:00 A.M. on the morning of the eighteenth, greatly hampered the already hopeless attempts to control or localize the flames." [Marion B. Lucas, Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, p. 102]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
I don't know about prisoners in jail. A city of 20,000 wouldn't have enough prisoners (considering the low male population at the time) to do a lot of damage and why would they even want to? There was a prison with approximately 1,200 Union men near by. Perhaps these are the prisoners that you refer to?
No. These were southerners who were imprisoned.
"References to the culpability of escaped Federal prisoners are also numerous, but the charges cannot be sustained because of the absence of eyewitness accounts. Evidence is clearer about the part played by one of Columbia's criminals in spreading the fire. Bill Morris, who escaped from jail during the confusion of the entrance of the Union army, was recognized by several citizens during the night as he set fire to houses and outbuildings." [Marion B. Lucas, Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, p. 103]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
"The truth is," wrote Union Gen. Sherman shortly before leaving Savannah, "the whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance upon South Carolina. I almost tremble at her fate, but feel she deserves all that seems in store for her." (emphasis mine)
Like I said, Sherman liked to talk big. His actions rarely matched his big talk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Whether Columbia was burned by Sherman's command or by his apathy for the welfare of Columbia is of no consequence. He is equally guilty for what happened, either way. It is claimed that he had promised his men free reign in South Carolina. That would account for his turning a blind eye to what was happening directly under his nose.
He neither ordered the burning of the city, nor did he do nothing about it. Quite the contrary. He and his officers, along with the Provost Guard and other troops on duty, tried to put fires out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Regarding Miss LeConte's view of a large portion of the city, what buildings are you referring to that blocked her third floor view? She indicated that she had a clear view of the area she describes. I see no reason to call her a liar. There seems to be little motivation for her to lie.
There were twelve buildings between her and the southern end of the fire. She couldn't possibly have a clear view of what was happenign on the street. She had a clear view of buildings on fire at the southern end of the fire, but there is no way she could see what was happening on the street, so there is no way she could see anyone cutting fire hoses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Cash: "She does seem to have a fertile imagination."
No, the fact is that she is all too aware that her nightmares are real and she describes them in vivid detail. To credit her hellish experiences to her "fertile imagination" does her grievous injustice.
The objective evidence shows she couldn't possibly have seen all that she claimed. She seems to have filled in what was missing with her own imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Cash: "In fact, the opposite. Your disparaging of that particular view supports my position."
How so? I don't even know what your position is. Are you claiming that Sherman couldn't control his men or that he wouldn't control his men? He has already stated that he felt South Carolina deserved anything that befell her.
My position is that Sherman didn't order the town to be burned.
Poor Mrs. Sherman. I'm sure the seperation from her husband was more than equal to the terror that Miss LeConte faced the night Columbia was invaded and burned.
You'll note that I also talked about them being responsible for the deaths of some of their friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
I'm afraid the historical records have failed miserably in convincing Southerners that the Columbians burned their own city and that the women who claimed Union soldiers burned their houses (while they begged them not to) and stole or destroyed all food they had, were liars.
They do tend to believe many myths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
In fact, I doubt too many Northerners, if they were honest, believe it either.
Anyone who is honest and who looks at the objective historical record will see that the burning of Columbia was a tragedy that was mostly accidental.
"May all Northerners be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing."Mrs. Robert E. Lee
Or subsitute Mrs. Lee for Mrs. Jefferson Davis. What is your reaction?
Dawna
Mrs. Lee actually said some things like that.
My reaction is the same. Her enmity is understandable because she blamed those Northerners for the separation from her husband, for the danger to him, and for the deaths of many of her and her husband's friends.
I've read hundreds of diaries and letters written by Southern people, and in particular, Southern women; but I've yet to read anything quite like the comments made by Mrs. Sherman to her husband...that "all Southerners should be driven like swine into the sea."
But I would be interested in reading 'similar comments' which you are suggesting were made by Mrs. Lee.
But I would be interested in reading 'similar comments' which you are suggesting were made by Mrs. Lee.
I'll have to get back to you on this, Dawna, but in the meantime here are a couple samples.
"I learn that my garden laid out with so much taste by my dear father's own hands has all been changed, the splendid forest leveled to the ground, the small enclosure allotted to his and my mother's remains surrounded closely by the graves of those who aided to bring all this ruin on the children and country. They are even planted up to the very door without any regard to common decency....Even savages would have spared that place...yet they have done everything to debase and desecrate it." Mary Custis Lee, 1866.
"Aunt Maria has been very kind in offering us an asylum there and taking care of all of our things...Custis astonishes me with his calmness; with a possibility of having his early and beautiful home destroyed, the present necessity of abandoning it, he never indulges in invectives or a word of reflection for the cruel course of the Administration. He leaves that for his momma and sisters."
Cash--
William Gilmore Simms, author, poet, journalist and historian, wrote his eyewitness account of the burning of Columbia in the book, “The sack and Destruction of Columbia, South Carolina”. Throughout the burning he claims Sherman was often spotted riding through the city and didn’t appear to be trying to stop anything that was happening.
Simms claims the Union army entered the city in an orderly manner, found and quickly put out the smoldering cotton bales. Soon the officers withdrew and the looting began. Then shortly after dusk three rockets were fired into the air and it was declared that it was a signal to commence burning the city. Fire quickly spread through out Columbia.
According to John T. Trowbridge, Northern journalist:
“Early in the evening [of February 17] as the inhabitants, quieted by General Sherman's assurances, were about retiring to their beds, a rocket went up in the lower part of the city. Another in the center, and a third in the upper part of town, succeeded. Dr. R.W. Gibbes was in the street near one of the Federal guards, who exclaimed on seeing the signals, "My God! I pity your city!" Mr. Goodwyn, who was mayor at the time, reports a similar remark from an Iowa soldier. "Your city is doomed! These rockets are the signal!" Immediately afterwards fires broke out in twenty different places.”
“The burning of the house of R.W. Gibbes, an eminent physician, well-known to the scientific world, was thus described to me by his son:
"He had a guard at the front door; but some soldiers climbed in at the rear of the house, got into the parlor, heaped together sheets, poured turpentine over them, piled chairs on them, and set them on fire. As he remonstrated with them, they laughed at him.”
"When will these horrors cease?" asked a lady of an officer at her house. "You will hear the bugles at sunrise," he replied; "then they will cease, and not till then." He prophesied truly. "At daybreak, on Saturday morning," said Gibbes, "I saw two men galloping through the streets, blowing horns. Not a dwelling was fired after that; immediately the town became quiet."
Trowbridge as well as Simms seem to verify what Miss LeConte says about there being a distinct signal to begin and another to end the firing. Simms writes, "While the Mayor was conversing with one of the Western men, from Iowa, three rockets were shot up by the enemy from the Capitol Square. As the soldier beheld these rockets, he cried out: "Alas! Alas! For your poor city! It is doomed. These rockets are the signal! The town is to be fired."
Credit is given to several Union officers who tried to control the men and help the citizens from being robbed, sometimes even sharing their provisions with the Columbians. Union officers who claimed to be Irish-Catholic lead the Mother Superior and her young charges to safety from the Ursuline Convent and stood guard over them all night. These officers are to be commended. But while these few acts of kindness and humanity were welcomed by the grateful citizens, there were dozens upon dozens of atrocities happening at the same time.
In 1867, a group of NYC firemen raised 2,500, for a new fire hose carriage. It was a gift to Columbia, SC, a peace offering. When the World Trade Center collapsed, NYC lost 343 firefighters and 98 vehicles in the disaster. Columbia, SC responded by raising 354,000 to purchase a state-of-the- art fire engine to NYC’s fire department.
Did Sherman order the city to be burned? Probably not, but his silence was his approval. Regardless of how Columbia burned, it’s in the past and old wounds, if not all together healed, seem to be scabbed over. Picking at the wound only tends to open it again.
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
There are a lot of problems with Simms' work. He appears to have decided prior to starting his interviews that he was going to indict Sherman for Columbia's burning and shaped his inquiry with that goal in mind. For example, he contends that the Rev. Dr. J. J. O'Connell, a Catholic priest, was "knocked down and severely handled" by Union soldiers. Father O'Connell, though, wrote his own account of Columbia and never mentioned being knocked down or roughed up in any way by Union soldiers. Another example is that Simms claims Mayor Goodwyn and General Sherman came across a group of soldiers who had just killed a black man, which Sherman dismissed by saying, "We have no time now for courts-martial and things of that sort!" The problem is that Mayor Goodwyn does not corroborate this in his own writings and the only verifiable deaths to occur during the occupation of Columbia was two Union soldiers who were shot by Federal troops sent in by General Hazen to suppress the riot. Simms also, in his haste to cast blame on Sherman, listed some property owners several times as having property that was destroyed, yet comparing his list with the 1860 Columbia Directory shows only one building owned by each of these individuals. He also includes buildings destroyed by the retreating confederates as being destroyed by Union soldiers. In short, there are far too many problems with Simms for him to be considered totally reliable.
Prof. Lucas discusses the matter of the rockets:
"There are two possible explanations for the rockets observed by Columbians on the night of the fire. The first, that they were a signal to a group of conspirators who were determined to burn the city, is plausible, but extremely difficult to substantiate. That some of the Federal troops expressed hatred for South Carolina and its capital is abundantly clear. How many of these men were engaging in mere rhetoric and how many transferred their feelings into burning and looting is not so lucid. In the final analysis, the entire case of a camp conspiracy to destroy Columbia is based on a meager amount of hearsay. ... The other explanation of the rockets was that presented by the Union officers who had been in Columbia. For purposes of communication, Sherman and Howard told the Mixed Commission, flags were used by the signal corps during the day and rockets at night. The rockets informed each wing of the army of the other's most advanced position. Henry W. Howgate of Sherman's signal corps put it succinctly: 'Our order was to exchange communication by means of rockets at a certain hour every night--eight o'clock--an hour when it was supposed the different columns, marching over different roads, would be in camp.' Though the charge that rockets signaled the fire has been extensively articulated by Columbians--the number of general accounts grew steadily as the years passed--it is difficult to believe that the relationship was anything more than coincidental." [Marion B. Lucas, Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, pp. 150-152]
It's interesting that whenever the confederate accounts are subjected to any bit of scrutiny they fall apart. The burning of Columbia remains a tragic accident.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
